U.S. Air ForceThe A-10 program at Selfridge ANG base may be cut in the next military budget.

The only good reason for government to spend money is to provide a
useful public service. Any jobs created, money spent, contracts executed
should all be in aid of providing that service. Period.

For instance, if the government is going to build a road, that road should be of some use to someone.

Obviously when you get down to specific policies there are all kind of economic nuisances like opportunity cost, marginal utility, and unintended consequences, but the discussion should start with a basic question: Is the public service worth the public cost?

So when we talk about military spending, one would assume the critical issue to debate is whether or not a specific military appropriation is useful to the national defense.

Unfortunately, to read a statement U.S. Rep. Candice Miller (R-Harrison Township) and her Battle Creek colleague Rep. Tim Walberg, a proposed shift in air force spending is bad, not because it puts our military at a strategic disadvantage, but because it will lead to job cuts at Selfridge.

Feb. 9, Rep. Miller statement: When we talk to our constituents who serve in the Guard as A-10 pilots who just returned from supporting our troops in Afghanistan, or who have been training to fly the C-27J out of Battle Creek, we can thank them for their service while at the same time explaining to them why their jobs are being eliminated. We believe these cuts are very real for the A-10 mechanic or C-27J ground crew; it is dramatic for the potential loss of more than 600 jobs. And as we have fought for all Michigan jobs in the past, we will fight for these as well. We will not stand for unfounded, unfair and economically indefensible cuts to the Michigan Guard and will fight these cuts in the U.S. House in every way possible.

Buried in their statement is an argument that Selfridge’s A-10 program is more cost-effective than the F-35 program proposed to replace it—Air Force brass disagrees—but Miller and Walberg’s main point is the Pentagon’s plans will cost Michigan jobs, and that’s unfair.

At the risk of sounding callous to the individuals affected, if the cause of national defense is best served by cutting local jobs, so be it. The sole purpose of the military spending is to keep America safe. Any ancillary economic activity created by military spending is completely immaterial.

I can’t say if Miller/Walberg or the Air Force is right about A-10s versus F-35s, but I can say that the debate should focus solely on national security, not economics. Once these things become about jobs, then even the most inefficient programs—paying Marines to dig holes for no good reason—become theoretically defensible.

If the A-10 program is no longer vital to national security, then we are better off as a nation and as taxpayers shifting funds to other military initiatives, or to paying down the national debt, or to a myriad of domestic spending needs like transportation and education.

All of those alternative funding ideas, by the way, create economic activity and jobs. Spend money on anything and jobs will be created. What matters is whether we’re spending it on something worthwhile.